the subcommittee on early childhood, elementary and secondary education will come to order. I note that a quorum is present. Without objection, the chair is authorized to call a recess at any time. Research consistently shows that when parents are engaged, students do better
academically, socially, mentally. The Supreme Court, likewise, has affirmed the vital role parents play in raising and guiding their children. Congress has long recognized this, too. In 1974, Congress passed two laws to reinforce
the importance of parental rights. First, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, known as Furpa, guarantees parents access to their child's education record and ensures that their child's information will not be shared inappropriately with third parties.
Second, the protection of pupils rights amendment or PPA requires public schools to obtain consent from parents before administering to students any survey, analysis, or evaluation that addresses certain sensitive topics. The PP also
requires public schools to make curriculum available to parents for review and protects other parental rights. Unfortunately, some states and school districts are failing to uphold the protections for parents contained in
these laws. For example, Defending Education maintains a de database that shows that as of earlier this year, 1,215 school districts, educating more than 12 million students, maintain policies of allowing or requiring school personnel
to hide basic information from parents, such as the name the child their child uses in school and the gender the child identifies with. In some cases, districts are even creating dummy files on students for the specific purpose of deceiving parents on these matters. In
addition, school districts are evading the PP by making it difficult for parents to access curriculum. For example, some school districts evade obligations under the PP by forcing parents to pay fees to review curriculum under state or federal freedom of
information laws. The growing use of education technology can also lead to FURPA and PP violations when safeguards are not in place to protect student information. Now, to be clear, this discussion is not about situations where
a child's safety is at risk. Existing state and federal laws along with mandatory reporting requirements for educators already address those issues. Rather, the issue before us is about how best to protect and support children by respecting the rights of parents. This
should not be a partisan issue. FURPA and PP were enacted decades ago with strong bipartisan support because members of both parties believed in the central role of parental engagement when it comes to a child's education and well-being. I hope through this hearing
we can return to that consensus, recognizing that transparency and partnership with parents are essential and that keeping parents in the dark is wrong. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about how these laws are working and the threats to parental rights currently faced in our nation's
schools. And with that, I will turn to the ranking member for an opening statement. >> Uh, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the witnesses for being here. First and foremost, I want to make abundantly clear that parental engagement is important to su student success. It's been proven that when
families are involved in their children's education, students perform better academically, have better behavior, and develop stronger social skills. And we all want the best for our children, and that includes strong supportive relationships between home and school. On that, Mr. Chairman, we
agree, and I think we all agree on that. But I expect that the conversation we're having today is not about finding new ways to get parents involved in their children's education. Unfortunately, nor will it be about protecting students privacy, which is also what we should be doing. It's about parents who think it's
their right to impose their beliefs on everyone. So instead of empowering parents to be engaged in their children's education, this is about forcing teachers into situations where they are expected to violate the trust students place in them. That kind of breach has the potential to undermine
the foundation of the student teacher relationship, which is a relationship based on trust and care. Students need to feel safe and be safe and supported in school. And that begins with a teacher who's there to guide them without fear of compromising that trust. The reality is that in some
circumstances, when teachers are forced to disclose information, they may jeopardize a student's safety or well-being. that may result in risking that student's trust, but also risking their academic and emotional success. When students can't trust their
teachers, it affects their ability to learn, grow, and succeed. It's as simple as that. It's also important to remember that children are constantly changing and evolving. I know I raised two of them. They may experiment with names, identities, and interests. And forcing
teachers to out every student every time they want to go by a different name or engage in some form of self-expression is an unrealistic expectation and disrupts this teacher student bond. [snorts] Here's an example. Children like Robert who prefers his nickname Bobby. Right? That's just one example of
the shifts that students make as they grow. I used to be Susie and then I was Sue and now I'm Suzanne and I'm sometimes called Susan. Why should a teacher be forced to notify parents every time a child chooses to be called something different? And more importantly, why are we putting teachers in the uncomfortable position of
quashing a student's curiosity and growth and beying that students trust? This is not a small matter. In some cases, this could possibly lead to forced outing, which can have very harmful consequences. We know that some students, particularly those in
vulnerable situations, face homelessness or abusive circumstances when they are outed when before they are ready. Research shows that LGBTQI youth are at least 120% more likely to experience homelessness than their non-LGBTQ
plus peers. The right to privacy and the ability to trust one's teacher is especially critical for those students who do not have or do not feel that they have a trusted adult at home. I want to to express and this is a a difficult thing to to talk about, but it's
important to say it would be very ideal if all parents were supportive of their LG supportive of their LGBTQI kids. Sadly, that is not the reality. We must protect all children, especially the most vulnerable, who may not have a safe and supportive home environment. We hope
all children enjoy, but sadly do not. I also want to touch on something larger. I remain deeply concerned about the political agenda driving this conversation. This hearing is being framed about an issue that misrepresents the concerns of parents and educators. I hope we can resolve these issues and
really work together on finding common ground on how we protect privacy rights and strengthen Purpa and Furpa, but I don't want to have another divisive culture war that distracts from the urgent needs of our students and families. We're seeing this administration's ongoing effort to
dismantle the Department of Education through six unconstitutional inter agency agreements that shift crucial responsibilities to other departments including the departments of interior, state, health and human services and labor. The transfer of these programs is not only highly inefficient and
wasteful, but will result in inconsistent enforcement of federal education policy. When education programs are scattered across a large number of federal agencies, it's led to fragmented, duplic duplicative, and al often inconsistent policies regarding to education. I hope we can focus on
building stronger partnerships between families and schools and not on divisive measures that threaten to undermine the student teacher relationship and hinder student outcomes. So we stand firmly on this side of the aisle in support of parental rights, but we also stand for the rights of students to feel safe,
supported, and respected in their classrooms. We stand for the rights of teachers to do their job without being forced to violate the trust of their students. And we stand for the idea that education should be about nurturing the whole child and not about creating political disruption. So Mr. Chairman, I
do look forward to the testimony and I yield back. Pursuant to committee rule 8C, all members who wish to insert written statements into the record may do so by submitting them to the committee clerk electronically in Microsoft Word format by 5:00 p.m. 14 days after this hearing. And without objection, the hearing
record will remain open for 14 days to allow such statements and other extraneous material noted during the hearing to be submitted for the official hearing record. I'll now introduce our witnesses. Our first witness is Mr. from Matt Sharp, a senior counsel and director of the Center for Public Policy
at the Alliance Defending Freedom in Lawrenceville, Georgia. Our second witness is Mrs. Laura Powell, the founder and president of Californians for Good Governance from Pleasant Hill, California. Our third witness is Mr. Cody Vinsky, a senior policy council for the American Civil Liberties Union uh
from Falls Church, Virginia. And our fourth witness is Mrs. Deborah Figuola, a retired secondary special education and English school teacher who taught at the Harrisonenburgg City public schools. Deborah is from Penn Leairard, Virginia. We thank our witness thank our witnesses
for being here today and we look forward to your testimony. Pursuant to committee rules, I would ask that you each limit your oral presentation to a threeminut summary of your written statement. As committee members have many questions for you, the clock will countdown from three minutes. However, pursuant to committee rule 8D and committee
practice, we will not cut off your testimony until you reach the 5-minute mark. I would also like to remind the witnesses to be aware of your responsibility to provide accurate information to the subcommittee. I'll first recognize Mr. Sharp for your testimony. Thank you, Chairman Kylie, Ranking
Member Bonamichi, members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today. Parents are the first and most important caregivers, protectors, and educators of their children. Long before a child enters the classroom, parents nurture their development, guide their values,
and help them grow into responsible adults. Our laws and Supreme Court precedent have long reflected the fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children. Yet today, that foundational relationship is being increasingly undermined in America's public schools,
where some districts disregard federal law and push parents out of the equation. Two federal statutes, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act and the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment were passed 50 years ago to ensure transparency and reinforce the role of parents in education. Furpa
gives parents full access to their child's educational records, while PP ensures that parents can review instructional materials and shield their children from intrusive surveys and evaluations. At their core, both laws recognize that parents cannot
effectively guide and protect their children unless they have accurate information and are fully involved in their child's education. But in recent years, a wave of secret transition policies has swept the nation. As we heard, these policies are found in over a thousand school districts. They direct
staff to conceal information from parents if a child expresses an identity of a different gender, such as using a different name or pronoun. These policies not only violate Furpa and PP. They deliberately sever the relationship between parents and children at moments
when young people may be experiencing profound emotional and psychological distress. These harms are not theoretical. At Alliance Defending Freedom, we represent families harmed by these unlawful policies. A Michigan school district treated a middle school girl as a boy, then scrubbed the child's
education records before sharing them with her parents. In New York, a mother who noticed that her daughter was struggling with depression and anxiety, reached out to school officials, asking if they noticed anything about their daughter's emotional struggles. The school assured the mother nothing was happening. Yet, it was concealing that
it had been treating the young girl as a boy for months. That mother's case was argued at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday. As Furpa's bipartisan sponsors explained, parents need access to such information in order to protect the interest of their child. But when
school officials defy federal law by hiding information in shadow records or by conducting informal psychological evaluations of a child without a parent's notice or consent, parents are denied the information and involvement needed to determine what support their
child may need. And that jeopardizes children's well-being. Congress must treat these violations with the seriousness they deserve. safeguarding parental rights by guaranteeing full transparency and involvement for parents is not a partisan issue. It's a matter of moral responsibility and
constitutional principle. Thank you. >> Thanks very much. I'll next recognize Mrs. Powell for your testimony. >> Thank you to Chairman Kylie, Ranking Member Bonichi, and the other distinguished members of the subcommittee. My name is Laura Powell. I'm the founder of Californians for Good
Governance, which is a nonpartisan group devoted to civil liberties and government accountability. I'm also an attorney and I'm the mother of two children in public schools. I'm here today to share information about practices and policies in California
that may violate Furpa and PP. I want to emphasize that these issues are not unique to California, nor are my personal experiences exceptional. What's unusual is that I pay close attention to what goes on in my children's schools while most parents are simply unable to
do so. Before turning to specific privacy concerns, I want to say a few words about parents rights and children's rights. We often hear this suggestion as if the two are in conflict, but that framing is wrong.
At the foundation of children's rights is the right to be protected by their parents. Verba and PP PP reflect this protecting children's rights by empowering parents. The current approach that we see in
California represents a radical break from this long-standing consensus. The first practice I want to draw your attention to is the constant surveying of children's emotional states. often through social emotional learning or SEAL.
Teachers, not trained therapists, ask children to share their feelings on a near daily basis. This may sound harmless, but experts and common sense tell us that constant self-reflection does not promote good mental health. And
at times, these probing questions effectively turn classrooms into group therapy sessions. In addition, using online surveys, third-party platforms record and track children's responses to personal questions.
Next, I want to highlight the issue of access to curriculum. The increased use of digital materials means less comes home in backpacks, leaving parents in the dark. In my experience, when a parent asks to review instructional materials related
to sensitive topics, schools drag their feet and erect unnecessary barriers. Finally, for years, the state of California has instructed schools that they're legally obligated in some circumstances to hide so-called unofficial records from parents. in
clear violation of FURPA. Schools also use technology to keep information out of parents reach, denying access to electronic records such as in emails and in student information systems. Taken together, these practices
represent a troubling trend. Educators increasingly act as if it's their role to guide children's emotional and moral development. But teachers are not parents and schools are not families. When schools move beyond their core
mission of academic instruction, they risk intruding on the sacred domain of the family. But above all, safeguarding parents' rights protects children who are not equipped to act as their own advocates when it comes to privacy
issues. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Uh Mr. Vinsky, you're recognized for your testimony. Chairman Kylie, Ranking Member Bonamichi, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on student privacy, family rights, the Family
Educational Rights and Privacy Act, and the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment. This issue is a salient one for me. I began my professional life as a high school math teacher, spent three years of my legal career focused heavily on student privacy, and wrote a treatise for Lexus Nexus on these very laws.
Today, I will cover three topics. First, reviewing the basic requirements of these laws. Second, evaluating their application to recent events. And third, suggesting next steps for this body and the US Department of Education. As applied to elementary and secondary
education, FURPA and the PP provide their paniply of rights primarily to parents. However, both laws transfer rights to students under certain circumstances and permit states and schools to provide students with more robust rights in addition to those
awarded to parents. Those rights fall roughly into three categories. First, under FURPA, an educational agency or institution may not disclose personally identifiable information from a student's education record without prior consent. Education records extends
beyond students permanent files and reaches any physical or digital record directly related to a student and maintained by the educational agency or institution. The consent requirement however is subject to 18 exceptions but schools should carefully limit the
disclosures even when an exception is applicable. Furba does not permit broad blanket disclosures of student information. Second, Furpa establishes rights to access education records upon request. As the department recognized just this
year, Furpa does not provide an affirmative obligation for school officials to inform parents about any information. The PP similarly provides rights to parents to inspect instructional materials and certain survey instruments upon request. Third,
the PP imposes proactive notice and consent obligations on schools regarding the administration of certain surveys, medical procedures, and the sale of student data. These rights apply even as the technological and policy landscape evolves at a rapid pace. New technology,
including artificial intelligence, may result in risk to student data, school surveillance, or unfair or discriminatory decisions about students. Furpa requires that student data be used only for a legitimate educational purpose and remain under the direct
control of schools. States have supplemented these protections in part by developing guidance on AI in the classroom. States and schools are often best positioned to address the specific needs of students, families, and educators. And efforts at the federal level to preempt state efforts to
regulate AI are misplaced and pernicious. On the policy front, the department has launched investigations into states for policies regulating when school staff may inform parents about a student's ch gender identity. Those laws, however, do not facially violate
Furpa. For example, California Assembly Bill 1955 merely prohibits schools and other local entities from mandating that employees proactively disclose students sexual orientation or gender identity. As long as a policy and its
implementation do not interfere with parents ability to access education records upon request, there is no direct conflict with FERPA. And these policies serve a sound purpose, not to cut out parents from decision-making about students, but to allow schools flexibility in responding to families
unique circumstances. Finally, FURPA and the PP merit attention from Congress and the department to ensure those protections keep pace with new challenges. Several priorities stand out. First, this committee or the department should highlight best practices as they
are developed at the state and local level to address AI in the classroom. Second, the department should undertake rulemaking to ensure that the term education records is construed broadly to cover modern electronic records such as emails sent by school employees regarding students and metadata
collected by edtech platforms. If necessary, Congress should amend FURPA to support that reading. Finally, written agreements with technology platforms help ensure that the data shared with those platforms is controlled by schools and used only for legitimate educational purposes. Written
agreements, however, are not generally required in these circumstances, and Congress should hold a hearing to examine whether making written agreements may further student privacy goals. My written statement reviews additional reforms that will help ensure that FURPA and the PPA serve as a
foundation for students and families to exercise their right to a public education without fear of surrendering their privacy. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today and I look forward to your questions. >> Thanks very much. And uh finally, Mrs. Figuola Ola, you are recognized for your
testimony. >> Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Kylie, Ranking Member Bonamichi, and members of the subcommittee. It's an honor to be with you today. My name is Deborah Figliola. I am a wife, a mom, a grandma, and yes, a teacher. I've been
an educator for 28 years, the last 11 years, uh, as a middle school teacher in the Harrisonburgg City Public School District in Virginia, as a special education teacher and an eighth grade English teacher. I loved the kids I
taught. In particular, I loved teaching students to read. I loved also the parents I worked with. I enjoyed partnering with parents to help students with special educational needs grow and thrive at school. But in 2021, the
partnership and trust I've developed with families was jeopardized by a new district policy. During the mandatory training, all faculty and staff were told that we must hide information about a student's social transition from the
parents unless um we had the explicit permission of that student. And if we disclosed to parents that their child was using different names or pronouns at school, then we would be subject to disciplinary action, including termination. I was appalled. Throughout
my time teaching, I've known and taught many students who either identified as transend transgender or were questioning their identity. My experience reinforced my belief in the importance of parental involvement, which allows moms and dads
to guide their children through these tumultuous years. But I felt that this new policy forced me to betray the trust that parents placed in me. Parents are ultimately responsible for their child's care and upbringing. They are a crucial component for a student's educational
development and success. That's why as educators, we always talk to parents. We tell them when a student is in trouble or getting an award, when a student is failing and when they're suddenly succeeding or when we notice a major change in their demeanor or their
behavior. To ensure that I could continue to maintain complete honesty and transparency with parents, I brought a legal challenge against the new policy and won. My school district agreed that it does not support hiding or withholding information from parents.
And that's exactly how it should be. Parents are too important to be kept in the dark about critical issues in their child's life. Parents know their children best. Parents know their child's medical history, any emotional issues they've had, and their academic
struggles. They bring a wealth of necessary information to support and help students navigate the challenges of being a child today. Parents are the ones who will be there long after kids finish school. Teachers won't. School counselors won't. And
those parents have a right to know what their child is feeling and experiencing as they go through middle and high school. Kids thrive with informed and involved parents, and our laws should support them as they prepare their children for adulthood. Thank you.
>> Thank you very much. Under committee rule 9, we will now question witnesses under the five-minute rule. And I'll first recognize the uh chairman of the full committee, Mr. Wahberg. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the panel for being here. And I think, Mr. Chairman, I've come up with a solution to all of this. We simply pass
a law requiring that only teachers are allowed to be parents. But Mr. Sharp, I think you messed that up because you already said that parents are the first and longest lasting teachers in a child's life. Certainly
was what my wife and I were as we supplemented our teaching with teachers in public and private schools during the tenure of our children's experience. And so I guess I didn't come up with a solution that we're talking about today,
but I wish we could see even as as um uh Mrs. Figola uh said uh that working that relationship together works works and ought to be encouraged. Mr. sharp. Some, including the Biden
administration, have asserted that FURPA and other federal laws uh confer on minor students an independent privacy right that require schools to conceal gender transitions from parents. Is this a correct anywhere near correct reading
of the law? >> Mr. Chairman, not at all. In fact, the the courts have routinely rejected that interpretation. In one case, they specifically noted that under FURPA, a child's right to privacy is secondary to a parent's right to know because that's
recognizing, as you said, children are best served when their parents are their primary educators and making decisions and to do that, parents need that knowledge and information. >> Yeah. Yeah. Appreciate that. Wish we all believe that. Um, Mrs. Powell,
it it's a refreshing bit of air coming from California to hear your statements and your experience. You note in your written statement that the Supreme Court has consistently affirmed uh that the government may not treat
every parent as a presumptive threat. It hurts to even say that, a presumptive threat to their own child. In your view, do policies that encourage or require teachers to conceal gender transition or other information from parents treat
every parent as a presumptive threat? >> Yes. And I think that was reflected in uh the ranking member's opening statement where she spoke about the concerns about some parents being abusive. So that's obviously a concern
that exists. That's a real thing. But you can't >> and we're all concerned about that. But you can't set policies that apply to every child and every loving home that have in mind that worst case. The abusive house, that is where the government appropriately does step in.
But that needs to be done on a case-byase basis. There's a high level of due process for the parents before the government can step in and interfere. And that's not what's being done. Um I don't think that really people think that these are abusive parents because if they did, the
teachers would be mandated to report it. it would be unconscionable to just send the children home at the end of the day to an abusive household. I don't think we're talking about actual abuse here, but the policies are crafted as if this is a serious abusive threat to these
children and yet they aren't really addressing that. And this is really the central theme of my testimony is that um it's really schools overstepping, going out of their lane when they really should stick more to their role uh and
not try to parent the children because they think that maybe they know better how to support the child who expresses gender identity confusion. They think their solution is the only one and they don't trust parents to know their children and to know the best way to deal with that individual child. Okay.
Thank you, Miss Figola. I appreciate your testimony. From what you experienced, how seriously did school officials take their responsibility to communicate with parents about their furpa and PP rights?
>> Not very seriously at all. Uh, as far as I know, parents were not made aware of that and their rights. And certainly teachers were not given training in how to go into these situations being respectful of perpa furpa and pp.
>> Did it seem that there was more attention given to conceal information from parents? >> Yes. Yes, sir. There absolutely was far more attention given to concealing information from parents. We were taught how to do it. We were taught how to uh
make sure that we always used the name that was the name on the uh record for the child and we were never to communicate with parents whether it was through a phone call or uh parent teacher conferences or anything written by any other name even if a name was
used always in school. We were never to use that name in contact with the parents. What a waste of tremendous teaching resources that parents could provide. >> Thank you. I yield back. >> Ranking member Bonamichi of Oregon is
recognized. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And uh again, as I said in my opening statement, sometimes these are difficult conversations and I certainly in response to the comment by Mrs. Powell do not presume that all parents are at risk to their students and none of us
do. We all agree that parental engagement is an important thing. Uh but that's not the issue here. If students are not talking to their parents about their gender identity, maybe there's a good reason for that. There's nothing that prohibits teachers from talking to the student about the importance of
talking to their parents. But sometimes students are afraid to do that because they're you, as I said, there's a lot of homeless youth who are LGBTQ and they get kicked out of their house when they reveal their gender identity. And and I I want to say the parental engagement,
as I said, is that's a key to student success, but if we want to protect student privacy and parental rights, we should talk about dismantling the Department of Education, the problems with that. We should talk about the six new illegal and unconstitutional inter agency agreements to move major education programs to different agencies
and how that will make it more difficult for the federal government to enforce FURPA and Purpa. It's going to be a nightmare for accountability. You know the department of agency's new inter agencies agree inter agency agreements fragment responsibility for student data. Spreading those programs across
multiple agency is going to blur who's accountable for interpreting and enforcing fur and perpendic as as Mr. said we need to update these laws uh not weaken them. uh and with the weakened department or non-existent department, what's going to happen with
guidance, technical assistance, and oversight uh and an increasingly more complex data world. And despite the outcry for stronger parental rights, the majority still supporting actions that are going to make it harder for parents and students to rely on fur and perpa and will leave data more exposed rather
than protective. So protected. So Mr. Um we we were talking before the committee started about, you know, maybe there's some ways we can update Furpa and Purpa and find that common ground. Um what do you think about the effect of moving all of this to other agencies
that lack the staff experience and expertise to address these issues? What's that going to mean? >> Thank you for the question. Dissolving Department of Education is going to raise serious obstacles to enforcement and updating FURPA to keep pace with modern technological challenges. Uh the department of education inspector
general issued a report some number of years ago highlighting that furpa enforcement was lagging. Uh complaints were not being resolved in a reasonable time. Schools were not being provide guidance to address harms that were being done to student privacy and that has largely not been resolved. And by
dissolving the Department of Education and dispersing those enforcement and rulemaking efforts elsewhere throughout the government, it could critically harm an area that is already underregulated and under enforced. And so there's a huge jeopardy to students if this
occurs. Moreover, FURPA and the PPA, the two statutes we're touching on today, they are premised on receiving funds from the Department of Education. If those critical grants are dispersed elsewhere throughout the federal government, Furpa and PPR PP become worth no more than the paper they're
printed on. >> Thank you very much. I have another question briefly. Uh Filer versus D. The United States Supreme Court held that students in this country have the right to public education even if they're undocumented. And I want to point out that immigration raids at or near schools, that's been restricted for
about 30 years across administrations. But earlier this year, the Trump administration rescended the sensitive location policy and recently schools have become scenes of aggressive immigration re enforcement activity. Uh students and their families are increasingly concerned uh for the safety
on the way to school or in school. Student absences are increasing. Immigrant student enrollment is decreasing. And I hope every member on this committee would agree that children should feel safe in schools. Mr. Vinsky, are you aware of any school district or state agency that's receiving requests from federal immigration authorities?
And how would this type of data be handled? Would FURPA be interpreted in these situations to protect uh student data? >> Thank you for the question, ranking member. Although immigration authorities continue to disclaim any intent to enforce immigration laws within schools,
we have seen at least one reported incident where ICE did request information on a former student which remains subject to FURPA uh for purposes of immigration enforcement. and Furpa emphatically protects the data of students regardless of their immigration
status. Moreover, and critically, Furpa does not have a general exception that says, "Thou mayest uh disclose student data to any governmental agency. Instead, it has 18 exceptions articulated in the regulations and in the statute, and those are all
permissive. Nowhere do they require disclosure except, of course, to parents or uh eligible students." >> I I appreciate that. I I just want to emphasize this is a pretty serious issue. In the district I represent, we have ICE uh stalking students in in parking lots. We had ICE agents point
loaded guns at students uh offampus, but at a coffee shop, but high school students. And this is not just affecting undocumented students. This is affecting Latino students, students of color. Uh and it's it's a really serious concern for our communities. And I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
>> Representative Miller of Illinois is recognized. Oops. Okay. Thank you, Chairman Kylie, for hosting this important hearing and to all of our witnesses for participating today. Parents have a God-given natural right to know what
their children are being taught in school. Quite simply, parents know best, and they shouldn't be the last to know. Unfortunately, many schools continue to break the law by dodging disclosure and consent requirements under FURPA. According to parents defending
education, over 1,200 school districts openly state that district personnel can and should keep a students transgender status hidden from the parents. In my home state of Illinois, there are at least 20 school districts with guidance
that specifically instructs faculty to withhold this type of information from parents. Not surprisingly, Democrats want to take away parental rights. For example, when parents voiced concerns about what their children were being
taught during the pandemic, Joe Biden's Department of Justice labeled them domestic terrorists. I call that promoting a divisive culture. In July of this year, Illinois Governor JB Pritsker signed a bill mandating so-called mental health
screenings in public schools. The law only allows parents to opt their children out by navigating an undefined, ambiguous process. Lastly, numerous universities across Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin
abused a furpa loophole during the 2024 election by sharing students protected data with the left-leaning voter registration organization called Allin Campus Democracy Challenge.
My first question is to Mr. Sharp. In your written testimony, you mentioned numerous examples of how school districts across the nation have violated FURPA. How, if all, if at all, are they being held accountable under these laws?
>> Thank you. As we've heard, for many years, these complaints that parents were filing with the Department of Education were going unanswered, ignored. Uh, in fact, in March of this year, uh, Secretary McMahon sent a letter to school districts saying that there was a backlog of complaints and
that parents were being forced to sit and wait on the federal government to take action to protect their rights. That's not okay. We're very encouraged to see this administration taking on the mantle and saying we are going to vigorously enforce Furpa and PP violations. But I think it's also an
opportunity for this committee and Congress to look of whether there are other remedies that ought to be available, other opportunities, including giving parents themselves the ability to hold school officials accountable when their rights are violated. >> Absolutely. My next question is to Mrs. Powell. You mentioned in your written
testimony that California schools are dodging the Supreme Court's Mahmood ruling. How can we hold them accountable to ensure parental rights are protected? >> Uh yeah, for those who don't know, Mahmud v. Taylor was a Supreme Court decision from June uh that reaffirmed
parents right to guide the religious development of their children and the right to opt out of instruction that interfered with their religious development. In that case, it was LGBTQ books for kindergarteners. Um it doesn't
just apply to LGBTQ books. It could apply to any kinds of issues. Uh but in California, what they're doing is they're burdening parents with figuring out what aspects of the curriculum they might find offensive, but and yet it's very difficult to get access to that
curriculum. >> The the Mahmood case actually had a requirement that parents be notified of these kinds of materials. So, I would like to see schools in California take that requirement seriously and and also stop dragging their feet when parents
inquire about curriculum. Thank you. My next question is to Mrs. Figlia. In your written testimony, you describe instances in which Harrisonenburgg City Public Schools directed faculty to violate federal law and withhold a
child's gender transition from their parents. Why do you think the district adopted this policy and why create such a blanketed district-wide policy? I don't know why they would think that this was a good policy personally, but I
do think that they think they know best. And I can recall in my own teacher training decades ago, I was taught exactly that. Te parents don't really know the best for kids. We as educators know best. And that didn't sit right
with me then and it still doesn't sit right with me. >> That's most unfortunate. I can tell you that this administration and all of us on this side are here to protect parental rights. Mr. Sharp, while I have you here, are you aware of
universities abusing Furpa, specifically the instances in which they allowed student data to be released to voter registration organizations. >> Thank you. I I've not tracked that issue, but I think we can all be very concerned when students information is being released uh whether for young
children without their parents' consent or students at the collegiate level as well. >> Absolutely. And I hope that issue moves forward and we can uh find a solution for that. Thank you. And I yield back. >> Dr. Adams of North Carolina is recognized. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
to our witnesses for being here today. Before I begin my questions, I need to speak uh plainly about what's happening back home in Charlotte. [snorts] Last month, Border Patrol agents descended on Charlotte in unmarked cars, wearing tactical gear, carrying long
guns, making arrests across churches and grocery stores and school neighborhoods. No warnings, no coordination, and the fear was was immediate. Families kept their children home, workers stayed inside, and parents told me that they were afraid to even open their doors.
And by Monday, uh, November 19th, by that morning, more than 30,000 Charlotte Meckllinburgg students were absent from school. Nearly one out of every four students in my district. And these children didn't stay home because of a book in the library. They didn't stay
home because of a curriculum dispute. They stayed home because they were terrified. And while we sit here today debating whether parents can access curriculum, something they already have the right to do, the real crisis hurting students right now is fear in our
communities, food insecurity, housing instability, and the loss of trust between families and and schools. And this is not hypothetical for me. I'm a 40-year retired professor. I represent these children, and I'm a mother and a
grandmother as well. But I represent these families and when students are too afraid to walk through the school doors, there's no furpa reform or PP amendment that that that will matter. And so today, I I want to just want to
focus on student safety and student privacy and the real consequences of getting this wrong. And so let me just uh turn to our witnesses, Mr. Vinski. Um so thank you first of all for being here. Uh you've written extensively
about FURPA was was created. Uh can you explain why FURPA was necessary when it was enacted before this law? Were student records, grades, discipline, even personal information sometimes shared casually or or without limits?
>> Thank you for the question. Representative Furpa was enacted to address two twin harms. One, as Senator Buckley, a conservative from New York, put it, is to address secret student records that might uh be used in ways that are harmful for to students, whether they be disclosed to employers
or be used in law enforcement proceedings. And these are particularly harmful when parents and students do not have the opportunity to access those student records or request their correction. And so the idea of access and correction of records became core to
the rights that FURPA established. But there was a second harm as well which was the disclosure of information without uh parental consent or consent from adult students. And this particular harm was one that surfaced in ways where for example uh Senator Buckley described
uh student records being used in FBI proceedings or in instances where it was being disclosed for sale in marketing. And Furpa was largely drafted along with the PPA to address those two twin concerns of one secret records and two unlawful disclosure.
>> Great. Thank you. And so if FURPA had had not existed, could a student's immigration status have been shared in ways that put that child or an entire family at risk? >> I I would think so. Uh prior to the enactment of Furpa, there was no great
regulation of with whom student information could be shared. Some states had passed laws to that effect. many had not and I think there was an underlying assumption that sharing with other governmental agencies uh no matter what reason the information was collected for originally was permissible.
>> Okay. Finally, do do you see any gaps in in how furer protects or fails to protect uh immigrant students and mixed status families who are living with real fear today. >> Two major concerns stand out. One of course is lack of understanding about
how FURPA applies among uh school officials. Uh I was a I'm a former teacher. I do recall my FURPA training which was largely when you have a conversation with a parent, make sure the papers on your desk are turned over. There was no deep concern what to do if a law enforcement officer shows up
demanding student files. So deeper guidance and training is always necessary. I want to point to one exception called the directory information exception, which I think is probably what Representative Miller was referring to. Uh that allows the disclosure of student addresses without their consent. It applies to other
information, but I think it's important that uh Congress and the Department of Education take a hard look at that exception and see if it needs to be updated. >> Thank you. We've heard claims that parents can't see what their children are learning. As a former professor parent, I've always understood that parents can ask questions, meet with
teachers, and review curriculum and uh under current law, can a school district refuse a parent access to curriculum? You got one second. >> No, they may not. >> Thank you. I yield back. >> Thank you for your brevity. Uh Mr. Harris of North Carolina is recognized.
>> Thank you, Mr. chairman and uh thanks to all of you on the panel for your expertise and uh taking the time to share with us today. As a father and and grandfather, I understand firsthand how essential it is for parents to be fully engaged in every aspect of their children's upbringing. And that's
precisely why Congress enacted Furpa and PP to ensure that parents have a meaningful access to information about what's happening in their child's education. Yet, as we've heard today, despite these clear federal protections,
some state governments and school districts are adopting policies that seem designed to limit transparency and reduce parental involvement. Mrs. Powell, in your testimony, as I've read it and then listened to you today, you walk through multiple California state laws that appear structured in ways that
could undermine Furpa's intent, especially regarding information connected to a student's so-called gender identity. And while California state laws um AB 1266 and AB1 1955 do not technically violate FURPA on their
face, they do create real risks. And so I would ask you to take a moment if you would and explain whether state officials are issuing guidance based on these laws that in your view effectively discourage schools from sharing important information with parents? Um,
yes, they are in California. For sure they are. Um, as I said in my written testimony, AB 2066, which was from 2013, had nothing to do with this issue. But nonetheless, the California Department of Education, used it to issue guidance
to all the school districts in the state, telling them that they were legally obligated to keep gender identity secret from parents if the children requested it. And then AB1955 was uh signed into law just last year.
And that's created just more confusion because the proponents say that it codifies that rule. And yet in the body of the law it says, well, there is an exception for any conflicts with federal law. So we've had a couple of courts
say, well, there is no conflict. And as U. M. Mr. Vinsky uh said, that is an argument that can be made. But at the same time, this has been the policy throughout the state from the Department of Education. The attorney general of
California has filed lawsuits against school districts that refuse to follow these secrecy policies. So, it is the policy throughout the state regardless of what any of the state laws say. >> Well, thank you. And and as you know, and and I want to just kind of follow up
on what you touched on. It was a 2021 California Department of Education FAQ on AB 1266 that instructed schools to, I want to quote, to prevent accidental disclosure of students transgender status. It is strongly recommended that
schools keep records that reflect a transgender student's birth, name, and assigned sex, example, copy of birth certificate, apart from the students school records. schools should consider placing physical documents in a locked
file cabinet in the principal or nurs's office. End quote. And that seems to me that they're directing schools to withhold information from parents. And Miss Pal, I will ask based on your expertise, do policies like this tend to
encourage schools not to inform parents when their ch child may be experiencing gender dysphoria? >> Absolutely. Um, and I want to correct, I believe that was that frequently asked questions existed prior to 2021. It's been long long-standing policy and it
was only recently removed due to a lawsuit and but they've never disavowed that guidance and I believe every educator in the state has received that guidance as being according to the state of California, it's required by law. Well, I agree. And and while these
radical state laws and policies may not violate the text of FURPA, it certainly violates the intent of the law and does so, I believe, in a shameful way. Mr. Sharp, real quickly in the last 45 seconds, in your written testimony, you laid out the Supreme Court's
jurisputants uh with respect to the right of parents to direct their children's upbringing. Do you believe state or district policies that directly or indirectly encourage schools to withhold information are consistent with the Supreme Court's view of parental rights?
>> Those policies violate court precedent on parental rights. The court has long recognized that parents have the constitutional right to direct the care and upbringing of their children. And that includes being able to make decisions impacting their child's mental health, their educational welfare, and and physical welfare.
>> 100%. And as you mentioned in your testimony, it's up to the parents, not the state, to direct the upbringing of their children. Thank you all for sharing today. God bless you. I yield back. >> Thanks very much. Uh, Representative Grihalva of Arizona is recognized.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the witnesses for being here. I spent 20 years on Southern Arizona's largest school um district governing board as a governing board member. I'm a proud product of our public schools as are my three children and um I have many many
friends who are teachers. Teacher training emphasizes the importance of parental involvement and how critical it is not that educators know best but that it should be a partnership and collaboration and I have never heard of some of the situations that have were
brought up by MIG Miss Figola ever not ever in any of the 20 years that I've been there. So I'm very concerned with some of the rhetoric that's being thrown out as if it's common place when it isn't. So FURPA and PP already give parents broad rights to inspect their
children's education records, review instructional materials, consent or opt out of certain surveys and data and uses that a condition of federal funds. Some recent disputes appear to reflect confusion about procedures in requesting information from schools, not an absence
of federal parental rights. So, um, as a as a mom of three children in our public schools, I I get information about everything that they're doing. I have the option to opt out of any information and most of the information requires active parental consent for my children
to be a part of it. So I think that if we had more people involved in our public schools, more parents and grandparents that are very intimately connected to what's happening in our public schools, this the fallacy and rhetoric around this issue wouldn't come out. It wouldn't be this confusing. So I
am asking Mr. Vinsky, what can the federal government do to support consistent equitable implementation of the laws and protect parental rights and student privacy? >> I think three things come to mind. One is updating regulations to reflect
current trends and situations that schools and educators face every day. Unfortunately, for example, the FURPA regulations remain out of date where two of the exceptions that were passed by this body into law have not been incorporated into those regulations. Similarly, key definitions like what is
an education record are prone to mislication in the digital world. Similarly, the PPR rate PP regulations have not been updated since 1984 and no longer reflect the current version of the statute. So, those will be key for ensuring that schools are aware of their
obligations. Similarly, reiterating and uh existing guidance and providing in-depth training, which is something that the department is strives to do but have minimal staff to do so will be key. There's extensive department guidance for example on what fees can be charged
for requests under fur PP. You have to dig and I've written a book on these laws and I had to dig to find that guidance. Yeah. So I think making that more accessible would be very beneficial for schools, parents and students. >> Thank you. Um this Republican obsession with gender identity is frightening to
me. It really is. Time and time again, the Republican majority have chosen to promote bigotry, fear-mongering, and marginalization of vulnerable students under the guise of parental rights instead of prioritizing issues that would help families, students, and schools. In contrast, Dem Democrats
stand for true parental rights. We also stand for the rights of students to feel safe, supported, and respected in their classrooms. We stand for the rights of teachers to do their jobs without fear of being forced to violate the trust of students. And we stand for the idea that education should be about nurturing the
whole child, not creating political um distractions. Mr. Vensky, is the relationship between teachers and students and the trust they build important to a student's development, growth, and educational career? >> It is critically important. Uh when I was in the classroom, parents were my
first partners in in educating their children. They were the ones that I called when something went well, when something went poorly, and they were always my allies there. But of course, students also turn to teachers among other trusted adults for advice. And those are important relationships to
maintain. And that's why some policies that have been enacted at the state and local level that require and mandate disclosure are so dangerous because they will jeopardize that particular relationship and not provide flexibility for schools or educators to determine how to relay that critical information
to parents. It's not about blocking parents out. It's about ensuring that schools have flexibility about when to bring them in. >> Yeah. Yeah. And there are so many situations where school districts and teachers are dealing with unfunded mandates. I would hate for us to look at
some of these really rare situations that may or may not have come up, interpreted different ways for us to change wholesale some federal policies when really I think your suggestion on looking at how to improve those policies makes the most sense. Thank you and I yield back.
>> Representative Mesmer of Indiana is recognized. Thank you, chairman, and uh thank you to our witnesses for being here today. Um Mrs. Figo Figliola, uh thank you for your providing your testimony. It cont it seems to be alarming that school districts are trying to undermine parents rights to
know what is happening to their child during the school day. After the after the conclusion of your case, did the school board change its policy and communicate that change to parents or did they deny that it was ever their policy? >> Thank you for your question. Um the
school district um refused to agree that there was ever a policy despite the district-wide training. Uh every teacher and every staff member was at that training where we were trained to always um I um address students by their
preferred names and pronouns and to never tell parents without explicit um direction from a student. They hide behind the fact that it was not in their policy handbook, even though it was retaught in required training meetings to all staff. The district did state in
the final statement about my case uh a year ago that it does not support hiding or withholding information from parents, but I don't know since then if they've changed anything. >> Okay. Are you confident that the school's district's stance toward parents has fundamentally changed?
>> No, I'm not confident of that at all. >> Okay. Um, it also seems that a policy having teachers lie to or conceal information from parents would affect teacher teacher morale. After your testimony, it's clear that your colleagues were uncomfortable with the mandate from the from the administration.
>> Yeah. >> What is what does it do to teacher teacher morale to be in your position where your school district has placed you? Well, it's very demoralizing because we do take very every teacher knows that our responsibility is to to teach our kids and to work with families
and to support families however we can. And here we have to hide information which doesn't make sense when the people who could make the a huge difference in children's lives. People who know their history, they know their medical history, their all their history, their family history, their emotional history.
people who love them. Quite honestly, teachers love their kids. But we're not there when the child graduates high school. Who is there? It's the parents. Hopefully, it's still the parents because when parents are kept out of the picture, there's a wedge put between
that child and those parents. And it grows. It grows when that child doesn't have the relationship with the parent, but has it with others. And then they feel more and more separated from that parent. So in the end when that child finishes school, gets out of school and
that parent wants to support that child. Uh if parents are kept in the dark all that time, how can they know how to support the puzzle that is their child as a young adult? They don't have all the pieces and they don't know what to do. So >> thank you. >> Thank you. >> Uh Mrs. Powell, in your written
statement, it contains a section uh discussing the alleged conflict some states and school districts see between parents rights and children's rights. Could you elaborate on the damage done to children, families, and society when children's rights and parents rights seem to be in conflict?
>> Yeah, the whole framing that puts parents rights and children's rights against each other is just wrong because the way it works, I mean, this is reflected in furba as I said um it's also reflected in the UN convention on
the rights of the child that is a widely known the document on children's rights. It's framed around parents' rights as well. It is the right to be protected by a parent. And when a child doesn't have a parent who can protect them in those
very unfortunate circumstances, that child is very vulnerable. And that's the only case where the government can step in and and assume that role that a parent normally would. But it is very dangerous to undermine that the children on their own. It it doesn't empower a
child to put them in charge of protecting their own rights. It renders them vulnerable. It's a scary situation. A child needs the support of their parents and that's why parents rights are children's rights. >> Thank you. Yield back my time.
Representative Hayes of Connecticut is recognized. >> Thank you. [sighs] Students are more successful when they have involved and engaged parents. And as a teacher, I am a teacher. That's how I came to Congress. I saw firsthand the importance of strong uh parent teacher
partnerships. Constant support in and out of the classroom is what leads to stronger academic outcomes. I like my colleague take issue with some of the rhetoric and the phrasing around having teachers lie to parents. I can tell you
that as a teacher and as an adult professional, I have enough of a moral compass to understand and a level of discernment to know that even if someone asks me or gives me a directive, much like our military, if I know it's wrong, I'm not going to follow it. Furpa and
the protection of pupil rights amendments are essential to protecting students and empowering parents. And they are built on the principle that parents should be involved in the education of students. Strong federal laws and robust and a robust Department of Education are necessary to protect
the rights of parents across the country. I am deeply concerned about the reorganization at the Department of Education and how this may impact the protection of parental rights, protection of student data, privacy, and whether FURP fur would apply to programs
administered by the other agencies. Uh Mr. Sharp, you referenced earlier how Secretary McMahon had said there was a backlog of complaints and parents could not get answers at the civil rights division, but that is contrary to the position taken by the department where
they have dismissed over 3,400 of the 4,800 civil rights complaints that are there with only 100 of those cases having been resolved and firing most of the staff since she came into office. So I really question if there is a
commitment to addressing the complaints of parents. On November 18th of this year, the department of education announced six inter agency agreements between the department uh the department of health and human services, the interior, labor and state. This is
another phase in the illegal dismantling of the department of education. And if the I have to ask how will these other agencies administer FURPA and how will it be enforced? Mr. Vinsky, in your testimony, you
mentioned the importance of robust guidance enforcement requiring staffing capacity and adequate and appropriate levels at the Department of Education to ensure FURPA enforcement. Do you believe that the HHS, interior, state or labor departments will have the expertise or
capacity to provide this robust guidance and ensure that furpa is enforced? >> Unfortunately, I have severe concerns about exactly how that would be structured and whether those agencies have the capacity or expertise to be carry out furpa's mandate and enforce those laws. And it's worth noting that
uh across all these witnesses, there's an agreement that furpa needs to be enforced and schools need to be supported in that enforcement. And I don't know if transferring the student privacy policy office or the privacy technical assistance center key organs within department of education to elsewhere is going to help achieve that.
>> Can you speak a little bit to what are the benefits about having this under one agency as opposed to split up across five different agencies? Not long ago, rulemaking and enforcement within the Department of Education regarding Furpa and the PP were
separated and there was a conclusion that those policy apparatuses and enforcement apparatuses needed to work in conjunction. And that is absolutely correct because often what we are looking for is not to punish schools and take away federal funding that is much needed to support students, but to help
coach them and support them ensuring that they understand the law and can follow the law. And by dividing up those enforcement mechanisms outside the Department of Education, uh you're going to hinder providing well-rounded support to schools. >> You referenced the five investigations
that the department launched into FURPA um as misplaced and appearing not to violate to actually violate Furpa. Uh what do you believe is the rationale for the administration launching these investigations into states and why do you believe that they don't violate um
the spirit of FURPA? The the underlying reason is because FURPA settled on the fact that schools are responsible for their administration, but parents should not be denied access to records. And so the bipartisan sponsors of Furpa developed the approach that is currently
embedded in the law, which is that parents may request access to those records and then request their correction if there are errors embedded in the laws. Some of the policies that are centered the discussion today don't address or affect that ability to request records whatsoever. They simply
say that teachers cannot be mandated to disclose student information even when they judge it inappropriate otherwise. >> Very different conversation. With that, I yield back. >> Representative Owens of Utah is recognized. >> Thank you. Thank you so much. Um,
education is one of the most important aspects of childhood. While children are young, we teach them things they need to know and how to think. The education is most important, most meaningful and impactful when parents, teachers, and schools work together in harmony. However, some schools increasingly see parents as an obstacle that needs to be
ignored or overcome. Cutting out parents not only are bad for long-term well-being of our children, but more importantly, it's not their job. Unfortunately, unfortunately, some families will feel the effects of those who have overstepped their bounds long after students have left their schools.
Today we have we are here to strengthen the partnerships between parents and schools so the needs of of students are met. I thank the witnesses for testifying. I look forward to your insight. U I'll just say this before I get started. This is why we need school choice.
We have a sense of arrogance when strangers who have our kids for a couple hours a day think they are the parents. The fact we're having this conversation is crazy to me. Uh my parents both were educators and the reason why they respected the reason why they respected
the teachers because the teachers honored the parents. Together they worked as a team. But I got in trouble in school. I was in trouble when I got home. So we have to start with that premise that there's only one set of parents and they're not in the school system unless it's their kids. All right. Okay. Uh,
Miss Miss Powell, we talk about the barrier schools put in front of parents like like you seeking to exercise the right to review your your child's curriculum. You made a point that ironically the use of digital instructional materials actually make it harder for parents to know what's being
taught. Uh, do you have suggestions for parents seeking to navigate these barriers? Examples of ways school districts should make it easier. Well, it's it's not easy for parents who live in districts like mine where where the districts seem reluctant to share
this information. And um one thing I want to tell parents is, you know, go ahead and make these requests. Sometimes I feel like I'm the only parent making these requests based on the responses I get. Um and and don't worry that you're not a lawyer because I assure you that I've written detailed letters citing the
law and those get ignored, too. So, don't be afraid to be persistent. Um, and also actually the first line of defense is uh your children. Uh, keep the lines of communication open with your children. Make sure you're instilling your values in your children.
They are, you know, your spies on the inside. My children report things to me when they see things in the curriculum that seem wrong to them and that's how I get alerted. Um, short of that, I worry if you live in a district like mine, lawsuits become necessary.
Thank you, Miss Figola. Democrats argue that concealing gender trans transition information from parents is necessary to to protect the children's well-being. But you make an important point that honesty with parents is important because it allows children and parents to have difficult
conversations about sensitive issues. What are the potential long-term negative effects of policies and practices that encourage children not to trust their own parents? >> One of the most important Thank you for your question. One of the most important things that I'd like to get across is that educators
uh need to partner with parents. That's been the the ground grounding for me from the beginning of my teaching for years. And I've known all along that that how important that is. And now as a mother and now a grandmother, I know how important it is for educators and
parents to work together because I've seen special education students meet their potential. The ones that have the parents that are most involved are the ones that meet their potential, have the greatest possibility of meeting their potential. That applies to all kids, not
special education students. But what I can say to you is that what it does when we do not com um communicate with parents and when children do not communicate with parents or they're not encouraged to communicate with parents like I said before it
creates a wedge between that child and that parent and or those parents and that wedge gets bigger and bigger as time goes on as more and more of the issue that they're dealing with that child is dealing with becomes more and more important and more embedded in them
it becomes harder and harder and the separation between that child and the very people who know them the most, love them for the most part. That's what parents do. They love their kids. And most of the parents that I've worked with, I've worked with a lot of parents.
And I have seen parents that aren't as involved with children become involved with children when they're encouraged, when I spend time with them, when I interact with them. I have always had parents phone numbers in my phone so I could text them and give them information as needed and it makes a
huge difference and to get rid of that wedge is really important for kids mental health. >> Thank you so much. I just want to say this uh this should not be a debate. Uh when parents see something is wrong in school if it's systemic and they have to debate you find someplace else to take your kids. That's why choice is so
important my friends. Choice will give us the best options across the board. and those who don't do it right, they go out of business and that's where it should be. So, thank you so much and keep up the good work. Go back. >> Representative Manion of New York is recognized. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. you know, to the to the witnesses here, to my colleagues,
uh, from both parties, to the staff behind us, our visitors, I can tell you almost to the person that you love the schools you attended, that your children love those schools, and that you trust the teachers in those
schools. But what I've listened to in this hearing and others is a false narrative that is being perpetuated that we don't trust our teachers, that we can't trust our teachers, that our teachers are arrogant and feel like they
know best. And I can almost guarantee to everyone in this room that that was not your experience when you dealt with teachers, when you dealt with school administrators, when you deal dealt with school boards, that that was not a a true reflection of what is actually
happening in schools. Issues of student privacy and parents rights have come up many times in this committee and they are very important issues. In fact, the argument that I think we would all agree on is there may be in many ways no more
important issue. But the way that this narrative is being perpetuated is just a disconnect from what's happening in schools. I was a public school teacher for almost 30 years. I am a parent. I was also a teachers association
president in a conservative community in a suburban school district for the last eight years that I was teaching. So, I've seen these issues from every single an angle and I care deeply about how
parents are engaged in their children's educational process and the transparency that all schools should have and to asssure that students feel supported in that educational setting. I started teaching in 1992.
If a parent wanted to know how their stu how their child was progressing, they might get a report once a quarter or they would have to call the teacher or they would have to call the administrator. If they wanted a curriculum, they would have to get a
hard copy of that curriculum or maybe they would ask their child or rumage through their backpack for information. But now in 2025, we have greater access to teachers, school
administrators, and schoolboard members than ever before. Parents can and are more involved and hold teachers and administrators more accountable than ever before. access to furpa and and uh
other state and federal laws are clearly displayed on websites and there are more teacher conferences than ever before. Teachers hand out their cell phone numbers to parents because they care,
because they work in partnership with the parents because they want to make sure that there is academic progress um occurring in that partnership that parents know about the behavior of their students. Parents have access to
negative behaviors, disciplinary actions. They have access to all of those things. access like they have never had before. So, it is important to realize that when we hear about parental rights, we should
be clear that parents have greater access to their child's education than ever before. The teachers that I represented were a true reflection of the district that I taught in. They were not all Democratic
members. They were Republicans, Democrats, independents, some more politically engaged than others. But politics wasn't happening in the classroom. Education was happening in the classroom. So I go back to my original statement which is about think
of your experience in the classroom, your own personal experience, your relationship with the teachers. That is what is happening. That's what continues to happen in the classroom. Parents should not be excluded from
their child's education and they are not excluded from their child's education. That was not only what I experienced, but I watched to make sure that fellow teachers, administrators, schoolboard members held each other accountable to
make sure that those rights were protected. And that's the parents rights and the students rights. I have no questions. I yield back. I'll now uh recognize myself for uh five minutes. So um I always like to try to build consensus in uh in these hearings
and uh obviously this is an issue uh where there are very strong opinions but I think we have identified some points of consensus today. So maybe I'll just list a few at least that I've gathered and uh any of the witnesses that disagree with any of these principles feel free to to speak up and uh and correct me. But I think we can all agree
that parents have a compelling and far-reaching right to know when it comes to their child's education. I think we can all agree that uh teachers and school personnel have a legal obligation to report uh when they have reasonable suspicion that a child is being abused in their home. We agree with that. We
can agree that immigration enforcement has no place in our schools. Can we agree with that? >> Absolutely. >> We can agree that federal laws pertaining to uh parent access to records uh do or ought to uh include electronic records. Can we agree with
that? Uh parents have a right to access their child's curriculum that's being taught in schools and parents have a right to opt their child out of sensitive parts of that curriculum and that indeed districts ought to let parents know proactively about these
sensitive areas and the right to opt out. Can we agree with that one? And how about this one? that it is unlawful for districts to require that teachers conceal information related to a child's chosen uh name or gender as uh Mrs.
Figuioa has described. Can we do we agree or disagree with that one? We laws that mandate that educators provide notice to parents about a child's sexual orientation, gender identity without regard to the child's specific
situation, the family situation, or procedures for bringing the parent into that conversation, can put the child in danger. They can strain that. >> But that's not exactly what I asked. Right. So that what she's described is a policy that requires concealment. Can you agree that that's unlawful
>> as opposed to a uh notmandating disclosure? >> Uh correct. >> Okay. >> So, we agree. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Great. So, I think that uh there is quite a bit of agreement here. And you know, I think that with some of these issues when it comes to um the
issue of uh of the name and and and the chosen gender, um I mean, these are increasingly common issues actually that we're we're seeing that are that are on the rise. I think they also sort of uh highlight this broader concern that in some cases you know it's not just the
decisions of the students that are being uh concealed from parents but also there's a sense that perhaps uh what the student is experiencing at school might influence the decisions that they make and that's that's in a sense a larger concern. Have you seen that in your in
your work? Uh Mrs. How >> could you repeat that that >> that parents are concerned not only that information is being kept from them about their students decisions but that the school might be playing a role in some sense in influencing those decisions. >> Yes. And in fact, I wanted to suggest one more point of agreement. The where
ranking member Bonamichi um spoke about the importance of having parents not impose their beliefs on other ons where you have ideological beliefs being imposed on the children and the schools
would be better focused on the academic instruction and leaving that part to the parents. Yeah, that's a great point. You know, when I think about what's happening in California, this has be become sort of a hot button issue the last few years. Um, but it's really an issue that has been provoked by
statewide elected officials and and by the California legislature. Like the norm over the last several decades has not been for schools to actively conceal information from parents. The notion that they would do so is sort of a new phenomenon. uh and you've had, you know,
statewide elected officials in California uh going around suing school districts, even passing statewide laws uh on the matter. Um you know, my personal view is that this is an attempt by them to create a distraction from the fact that our public schools are failing
to adequately educate our kids. California has the highest illiteracy rate in the country. UC San Diego just announced that a significant share of their incoming freshmen uh can't do even basic math. And this is despite the state now spending almost $40 billion
more per year on education than when Gavin Newsome became governor uh just a short time ago. So uh what do you think of that uh Mrs. Powell? Do you think that this is an attempt by politicians to provoke a kind of culture war issue
and an attempt to evade accountability for failed academic outcomes? >> Yes, I' I'd agree with that. I mean, you were in Sacramento for a while and you see how things operate there and there's a lot of that goes on and and not a lot gets done that actually benefits the
children. I mean, I'm in a district with kids pro uh performing below grade level, most kids, and yet so much energy is spent on things like social emotional learning and not on the academics that the kids really need.
>> Thanks very much. Uh my time has elapsed and uh oh, do we have another? >> We do. >> Ah ah Miss Lee of Pennsylvania is recognized. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll um start by uh stating what I think is the obvious, which is that if we want to
safeguard students privacy, we can start by keeping the agency responsible for students privacy intact. The Department of Education holds states and districts accountable to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act or Furpa and the Protection of Pupil Rights uh amendment
or P uh P. If other agencies are administering the Department of Education's programs, students and families may lose those protections. The next obvious point I I'd make is that parents already have rights. The National Parent Teacher Association was
created in 1897. Parents had rights before all children even had access or the right to a public education. PP already gives parents and guardians the right to inspect instructional materials using their students curriculum. uh
furpa already guarantees parents and guardians access to their children's educational records. So this is essentially a bad solution in search of a problem. But by successfully galvanizing parents behind this idea that they don't have right, Republicans can rebrand pre-existing education
access and transparency obligations, including those that have been mandated by FURPA and PP since the 70s as a new parental right. And Republicans are weaponizing these so-called new parental rights to target transgender students, suppress inclusive curriculum, ban
books, and fairer about indoctrination from teachers who can barely afford rent and still use their own money to pay for school supplies for their students. Hearings like this one elevate the hateful and baseless demands of a small set of parents while ignoring the very
real needs of parents who have legitimate concerns about their children's privacy. In 2025, the privacy risks facing students include things like students being profiled by discriminatory artificial intelligence algorithms or large-scale data
collection by for-profit education technology contractors. There are countless for-profit education technology companies lobbying schools to implement their surveillance systems. These systems compile sensitive data uh excuse me sensitive details about
students lives using biased AI tools like facial recognition and so-called behavioral aggression detection. They monitor students devices uh chat messages uh social media and geoloccation and those with access to this vast amount of student data can use
it to surveil to censor to punish uh and criminalize children. and adtech companies not only have access to the sensitive data, but they can profit off of it. I request unanimous uh unanimous consent for report by the Pennsylvania Advisory Committee to the US Commission
on Civil Rights titled the rising use of artificial intelligence in K through2 education to be entered into the record with desription. Thank you. This report highlights a FURPA loophole where for-profit education technology companies who contract with schools can
be deemed school officials and are granted access to sensitive student data with no real oversight. Uh Mr. Vinsky, in your testimony, you talked about the loopholes that permit uh the monetization of student data. Can you tell us what Congress can do to close these loopholes and address actual
concerns about protecting students privacy? >> Thank you for the question, Representative. the uh threat posed by technology in the classroom can bring of course benefits but at risk to student privacy as well and there are a number of steps that Congress or the department of education can take immediately to
address this one is ensuring that two key definitions in fura are broadly construed that is education records and personally identifiable information but the key here is to make sure that this law from 1974 is very clearly extended to modern
digital records whether it be the metadata that edtech platforms collect on students as they're using the services or things like emails regarding students. There's additional measures that can be used as well such as passing a federal version of a law known as
SOPIPA which guarantees that education technology platforms do not sell or monetize student data. So there are a number of avenues available. >> Thank you. So by focusing on parents rights to access student data that they already have a right to access, Republicans are shifting the narrative
away from ad tech companies profiting from students data without their consent. In addition to closing loopholes, we have to protect students from biased AI that exacerbates the school to prison pipelines. We can start by passing uh the AI civil rights act that I introduced yesterday with Senator
Marky and Congress uh women Clark and Presley and several other colleagues among many other safeguards. This bill will prohibit adtech companies from selling schools biased algorithms that inform consequential actions like suspensions or expulsions or referrals to law enforcement. As technology
advances, we need to ensure children's safety is at the forefront. And I mean safety from actual harm, not from a book that has characters reflecting the diversity in America or makes a student think critically about our country's past. Um, I would love to see our
committee discuss some of those. Uh with that I yield back >> and thank you representative for supporting the AI civil rights act. >> Thank the agenda lady and I wish to yield five minutes to myself for questioning. Thank you for the panel coming here today. U Mr. Sharp in your written testimony you included an
extended quote from Senator Orin Hatch describing Congress intent in passing PP. You described his expression of congressional intent as quote present unquote. Can you further explain why Senator Hatch was correctly illustrating
the importance of PP? >> Yes. At at the time he introduced that statement, he was very concerned along with other members of Congress about schools asking very invasive questions and evaluations of kids, asking about their behavioral patterns, their beliefs
with the intent to sort of manipulate these kids. Some of the questions were also designed, as he described them, to sort of drive a wedge between parents and actually question kids to to paint their parents as the bad guy. That's a lot of what we're unfortunately seeing with these secret transition policies across the country. I look at some of
ADF's clients like the me family or the Visaki or the Foot family. These are all parents that love their kids and wanted to be invested but found themselves boxed out by school officials who painted the parents as intolerant or or bigoted. That's how one set of family parents were described when they simply
told schools, "Stop trying to transition our kids. Stop trying to use inaccurate names and pronouns over our wishes." That's the exact thing that Orin Hatch was worried about when he introduced this and why it's so important that we need PP and FURPA reinvigorated today to protect parental rights and to make sure
that these loving, caring families are not boxed out and painted as villains by schools. >> Very true. Thank Thank you. And Miss Powell, you mentioned in your testimony that parents rights is often quoted as a
right-wing cause. Could you tell us about your own political history and how you came to be involved in these issues in California? >> Um, yes, thanks for the question. Um, I'm born and raised in Oakland, California, which is going to be the
most liberal place you can find anywhere. Right next door to Berkeley, right by San Francisco. I was a registered Democrat for I guess 30 years. uh would have considered myself pretty far to the left um of the party
and I found in recent years that the values that I associated with liberals or progressives um were being abandoned and uh I had worked in human rights law originally and that's a field dominated by liberals
um and now increasingly you find if people are talking about civil rights issues they're more likely to be Republicans ans or identify as conservatives, which is why I'm here at the invitation of a Republican. But
I I don't see how um there is still among many liberals liberal values. I mean, to me, this came into sharp relief during COVID where I saw authoritarian policies being promoted by people who were considered liberals. I'd really
like to reclaim that word for something that has to do with liberty. But um to me, parents rights may have long been a conservative issue to some extent. Uh but but it was never the the
understanding that parents rights are at the foundation of children's rights has been around for many decades, forever. And that was something progressives all agreed on. And when you see parents being actually cut out, that is a very radical extreme move that um I see
happening in schools. And despite some comments where um former educators say that this isn't happening in schools, respectfully, I think perhaps they haven't been paying attention in recent years. This is a new development and uh it's not what I saw when I was in school. Um I'm pretty shocked to find
out the sort of attitudes from the schools that we see now as a parent. Thank you so much. Uh the whole panel was terrific in providing your explanations. I found this really really helpful and I appreciate you all coming on in today. I now wish to recognize
Miss Bonanichi for her closing remarks. >> Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the witnesses for being here today. Uh as we wrap up, I want to reiterate what I said before and emphasizes Democrats are unwavering in our support of parental rights. I don't
see it as a left or right or Democrat Republican issue. It's a right or wrong issue and parents are involved. Families are essential partners in their children's education. There's no doubt about that. And we want what's best for kids. But the conversation we're having today is not about empowering parents.
It's about the balance of trust and safety that needs to exist in schools. Teachers are trained professionals and trusted with the responsibility of guiding and supporting students. That relationship is built on the foundation of trust. And when we p place teachers in the position of being forced to
compromise trust, whether by disclosing personal information about students or being forced to out a child, that creates real harm, particularly to some of the most vulnerable students in our schools. We cannot ignore the effects of policies that place teers in such a
difficult position. And unfortunately, even though some would like to, we cannot create or order by legislation good relationships between students and their parents. That's not something we can do. And one of the things I want to emphasize is that statements made by the
administration and sometimes by members of Congress that demonize or disparage LGBTQI plus people are not only mean and discriminatory but also counterproductive to open dialogue between students and parents. I want to
note that in 2023, 86% of trans or non-binary youth said that recent debates regarding anti-trans bias negatively affected their mental health. That was 86%. There's no more recent research on that because the Trump administration has
ended research on LGBTQI health. But it's really something that we need to keep in mind. I also uh want to to say that we cannot let divisive political agendas distract us from real challenges. And and I want to go back to something that Mrs. Powell
said. A child needs the support of their parent. Absolutely. We don't disagree with that. And just real real quickly, two stories in this very room. A mom named Kimberly sat where you're sitting today and said, "I'm from," this is what Kimberly said. I'm a a hardcore
conservative Republican from rural Texas. And ever since my child was born, my child's been saying, "I'm a girl, mom. I'm a girl." So Kimberly said, "We tried everything. We prayed. We tried conversion therapy." And then I heard my child threaten suicide. And at that
point, Kimberly uh took her family and moved to a place where her daughter Kai is now supported and healthy and doing well in school. so they could talk about uh where Kai was excelling, not where how Kai was doing something wrong.
That's a courage and courageous parent who was did the best for her child to support her child. Not every parent is like that. And and the other story is Secretary Vilsac when he was agriculture secretary sat in this room in this very room and somebody said, "Shouldn't
parents why shouldn't parents be taking care of their kids? Why why should the government feed them?" And Secretary Vilsac said, "Well, let me tell you what happened to me. I was an orphan and I went from orphanage to orphanage and and then I was finally adopted, but my adoptive mother was good to me when she
was sober, but that wasn't very often." And the reason Secretary Vilsac said, "I'm here today is because he had food to eat at school." It's an analogous situation. Not every parent is going to help and support their child. And that's what we need to be aware of. uh that
that again we cannot order or create uh a a good relationship between parents and students as much as we would like to. Um what we need to do is focus on in this committee addressing what people really care about. Can they afford their healthcare? Can they afford their uh
their housing? And we've had some good bipartisan hearings in this committee about screen time uh and about hands-on project-based learning and career and technical education and the benefits of those. So, let's work together on the many issues and the privacy issues, many of which we identified today, Mr.
Chairman, where we agree and let's all agree that creating a safe and supportive environment where students can thrive and where parents and educators can work together, that's to the benefit of all children. I look forward to the ongoing conversation, Mr. Chairman and witnesses. Again, thank you for being here and I yield back the
balance of my time. Uh thanks very much and uh I am glad that we have had a fair amount of bipartisan agreement both on specific policies and on the foundational importance uh of parental rights and you know I would like this issue to become one that uh isn't a source of ongoing
contention that's just kind of the default and uh the the law is that parents have a right to know what goes on uh in their kids' classrooms. That's why we had these two landmark uh pieces of legislation that have have been on the books for uh for decades with with bipartisan uh support. And so uh I think
that you know the um uh the issue where we actually are seeing attacks on parental rights uh that occur in states like California uh as I said before you almost always find that it's in places where the underlying school system is not performing well. And so it becomes
this sort of smokec screen uh to distract from the failure to teach kids reading and writing uh and math. And so uh I think that's unfortunate. Uh I think that uh hopefully though we can uh as a committee work on uh making sure that these issues don't continue to
flare up in places like California that we can agree on protecting the rights of parents and that we can return our focus uh in our school system to 100% on what it should be on and that is uh making sure that every child has access to a great education. So I want to thank our truly uh exceptional witnesses for your
testimony. Uh and uh without uh any f if there being no further business, the committee stands adjourned.